IlIBRARYOFCONGIlESS.i 

# ■ # 



# JJAc 



f UNITED STATES UP AMERICA, f I 



THE ONLY SALVATION, EQUALITY OF RIGHTS. 



y 



SPEECH 



/ 



HON. RICHARD YATES, OF ILLINOIS, 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 19, 1866. 



The Senate having under consideration the joint 
resolution (H. R. No. 51) proposing to amend the Con- 
stitution of the United States — 

Mr. YATES said: 

Mr. President : I send to the desk to be read 
Senate bill No. 106, which I introduced on the 
29th January last, and in favor of which I pro- 
pose to speak to-day. 

The Secretary read the following bill : 

A bill to protect citizens of the United States in their 
civil and political rights. 
Whereas the Constitution of the United States abol- 
ishes slavery in all the States and Territories of the 
United States, whereby all constitutions, laws, or reg- 
ulations of any State or Territory in aid of slavery 
or growing out of the same are null and void; and 
whereas, by virtue of said abolition of slavery, all men 
in all the States and Territories are citizens, entitled 
to all the rights and privileges of citizens, subject only 
to the legal disabilities applioable to white persons; 
and whereas, also, it is expressly provided that Con- 
gress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legis- 
lation the aforesaid power abolishing slavery, which 
cannot be done without protecting all citizens against 
all restrictions, penalties, or deprivations of right 
resulting from slavery, and securing to fhem all their 
civil and political rights, including the elective fran- 
chise: Therefore, 

_Bt it enacted 6j/ the Senate and HoM^e of Representa- 
tives of the United States of America in Congress assem- 
bled. That no State or Territory of the United States 
shall, by any constitution, law, or other regulation 
whatever, heretofore in force or hereafter to be 
adopted, make or enforce, or in any manner recog- 
nize any distinction between citizens of the United 
States or of any State or Territory on account of race 
or color or condrlion, and that hereafter all citizens, 
without distinction of race, color, or condition, shall 
be protected in the full and equal enjoyment and 
exercise of all their civil and political rights, includ- 
ing the right of suffrase. 

Mr. YATES. I confess, sir, to some em- 
barrassment in addressing the Senate at this 
time, and the greater because I know that the 
positions which I assume will be different from 
those of honorable Senators for whose opinions 
I have very great respect, and to whom it would 
seem becoming that one so humble as myself 
should defer. But, sir, the opinions which I 
have seem to me very important ; and it appears 
to me that I cannot discharge my duty as a 



representative of the State which I have the 
honor in part to represent on this floor without 
expressing them. In doing so, it is with the 
conviction that this question, as was remarked 
by the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Hendricks] the other day, is the gravest which 
has ever been discussed by the American Sen- 
ate. The duty of this Congress, it seems to me, 
is one of tremendous responsibility. Our action 
ought not only to be effectual, but it ought to be 
timely and final. A mistake now will be fatal. 
Delays breed danger. We ought to do to-day 
what it will be too late to do to-morrow. It will 
not do to receive the rebellious States into full 
fellowship in the Union now, because they are 
not fit to come in. It will not do to keep them 
out, for it is dangerous to keep them out too 
long. We desire a restored Union. In union 
there is strength ; but in union there is weak- 
ness if the parts, like oil and water, will not coa- 
lesce. A rope of sand will not hold together. 
We should aim to do what Mr. Lincoln almost 
always did, the right thing at the right time, in 
the right way, and at the right place. It should 
be our aim as legislators to legislate, not for a 
part of the country only, btitforthe whole coun- 
try, upon principles that will stand the test of 
time by standing the test of impartiality, of 
equality, of justice, and righteousness. 

And, sir, if this Congress having the power, 
as I believe it clearly has, by a general law to 
restore, through harmonious adjustment, the 
rebellious States, instead of fearlessly and 
promptly exercising that power, waits for some 
constitutional amendment which cannot be 
adopted, or which if adopted is not founded on 
correct principles, we shall be recreant to our 
duty, and we shall incur and deserve to incur 
the reproach of the nation and of mankind. 

In discussing the bill which I have had the 
honor to introduce, I shall not attempt to coq- 
trovert any of the principles which have been 
entertained heretofore by either the Republican 
Union party or the Democratic party so far as 






the jurisdiction of the States over the question 
of slavery was concerned under the Constitu- 
tion of the United States ; nor shall I contro- 
vert the proposition that the States have the 
power under the second section of the first 
article of the Constitution to regulate the quali- 
fications of the electors in the States. I shall 
attempt to show, on the other hand, that by the 
amendment to the Constitution abolishing sla- 
very. Congress already has the power by a gen- 
eral law to do all that is proposed to be done 
by the various amendments which have been 
submitted to both Houses of Congress. If we 
shall fail, having that jjower, to exercise it, then 
by reason of the long and dangerous delay which 
will occur, and by reason of the almost criminal 
omission on the part of Congress to exercise its 
plain constitutional duty, this Government is 
in danger of passing into the hands of a party 
whose action and sympathies have been opposed 
to the prosecution of the war for the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion, who voted our glorious 
war a miserable failure at the expiration of four 
years of brilliant service, who opposed the proc- 
lamation of emancipation, who opposed the 
amendment abolishing slavery in all the States 
and Territories in the United States, who to- 
morrow, if they had the power, would repeal 
your test oaths, who would pardon Jeff. Davis, 
who at this very session of Congress are upon 
the record in opposition to the protection of the 
rights of the freedmen, and who stand ready 
now to receive in the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives Senators and Representatives-elect 
fresh from secession State Legislatures and from 
battle-fields where their hands were imbrued 
in the blood of our loyal countrymen. 

This is the aspect of affairs as it seems tome 
to-day. There is only one way of salvation for 
the country. Your amendments to the Consti- 
tution of the United States cannot be adopted. 
If we have not the power now under the Con- 
stitution of the United States to secure full free- 
dom, then, sir, we shall not have it, and there 
is no salvation whatever for the country. Let 
not freedom die in the house and by the hands 
of her friends. 

Mr. President, the work of reconstructing a 
Government, of restoring rebellious States to 
their former condition, is a more difficult work 
than building up a new Government. The 
statesmanship which attempts to restore rebel- 
lious and shattered States to their former rela- 
tions to the Government must encounter pre- 
judices growing out of local State governments, 
State regulations, the conventionalities and 
usages of society, judicial decisions, the con- 
flicts of Federal and State authority, and all 
the numerous and divergent opinions of men 
with regard to the fundamental rights of the 
citizen and the mode of securing those rights 
and administering the Government. 

The work of our fathers, though one of sublime 
magnitude, as herculean as it was grand, yet was 
an exceedingly simple one. Though its funda- 
mental object, to carry out their principles by 
the machinery of well-adjusted and regulated 



government, required the picked men of the 
world, whom God in His kiud providence fur- 
nished the nation, yet the object they had in 
view was exceedingly plain, simple, and easy 
to be understood. What was that object? To 
estal)lish freedom, to secure equality to all men, 
to secure the right of the majority to rule ; or, 
to use the language of the present President of 
the United States, "to secure exact justice to 
all men; special privileges to none." Who 
will deny that these were the olijects for which 
the Revolution was fought, and for which the 
Declaration of Independence was made? 

These being the objects of our fathers, I do not 
deny that when they came to form a Government 
they encountered an institution which was hos- 
tile to the principle which they attempted to 
establish. I do not deny that in an evil hour 
of compromise, for the sake of concord among 
the States and to secure the adoption of the 
Constitution, they most reluctantly recognized 
the institution of slavery in the Constitution of 
the United States, as is proven by the fact that 
representation was denied to the colored man 
in the slave States except through the white 
electors, and the other clause of the Constitu- 
tion which permitted the forcible arrest of the 
fugitive slave and his return to his master. But 
it was from no fault of the principles of our 
fathers that our national troubles sprang up ; it 
was from a departure from their principles in 
the respect to which I have alluded. Slavery, 
which they supposed to be so small an element, 
which they supposed to be temporary in its char- 
acter, which they in their hearts believed the 
Statesthemselveswould very soon abolish, grew 
from a few persons to millions in number, and 
the institution became so profitable and so 
cherished that the leaders of the South finally 
planted themselves upon it as the very basis 
and corner-stone of society and government. 
Two systems of government and civil society 
existed in the country, two systems of labor, 
both supported by great and powerful interests 
and energies, warring, jarring, antagonistic, 
belligerent, each striving for supremacy. Sla- 
very, in fact, through adroit politicians, became 
the balance of power, and, wielded and for a 
time shaped and controlled the policy and legis- 
lation of the country. Slavery became almost 
the Government of the country, and no impor- 
tant question could be discussed in the country 
except by its relative bearing upon the institu- 
tion of slavery. It doomed to ignorance, pros- 
titution, and crime nearly four million people, 
appropriated the proceeds of their labor, en- 
forced ignorance upon them by severe penal- 
ties against education, and secured obedience 
by the lash, the revolver, and the bloodhound. 
The slaveholder, rioting in wealth from the 
bended back and shrill agonies of the crouching 
slave, became arrogant and aristocratic, and 
learned not only to believe in African slavery, 
but boldly to denounce free society as a failure, 
and hence the condition of the poor white man 
of the South became scarcely more tolerable 
than that of the slaves themselves. 



X 



But, sir, I will not follow this history, the 
fierce, domineering, bullying spirit of slavery 
in our national Capitol, its attempt to establish 
itself by force upon Kansas, &c., but simply 
say that its front became so brazen, and its aims 
and demands \vfere at such hostile variance with 
our free institutions, that it became evident that 
the two systems of freedom and slavery could 
not exist in the same land. And when Abra- 
ham Lincoln, the great emancipator, came be- 
fore the American people to define and to as- 
sert the great jiroposition that this nation could 
notvremain half slave and half free, when the 
slaveholders saw that the power was departing 
from them by the admission into the Union of 
new free States, when they saw that they could 
no longer rely upon full cooperation from their 
northern sympathizers, and a resolute spirit in 
the northern States to resist the further en- 
croachment of slavery, then they Avaxed wroth, 
and in the pride and insolence which the system 
had engendered they drew the sword and struck 
at the life of the nation. It was under such cir- 
cumstances as these that the rebel States raised 
the banner of revolt, ordained themselves out 
of the Union, fired upon our flag, and forced us 
into that self-defensive war which, thank God 
and our brave Army, resulted in the total ex- 
termination of the monster slavery, and planted 
our flag wherever traitor hands had pulled it 
down. 

What was this war about? "State rights." 
Itwas a question whether the Constitution and 
laws of the United States were to be the su- 
preme law of the land, or whether State sov- 
ereignty, as it was termed, wasta'be the supreme 
law. It was whether a State, at its mere pleas- 
ure and volition, had a right to secede from the 
Union and to establish a separate . and inde- 
pendent government. Itwas State rights, which 
we now see resuscitated, creeping up again, 
and peering out from manifestoes in high quar- 
ters, and interpolated, in my humble judgment, 
without any proper connection, into funeral ora- 
tions. "State rights," which says if Congress at- 
tempts to assert its power Kentucky will go out 
of the Union. "State rights," which the honor- 
able Senator from Maryland says, if Congress 
attempts to regulate the qualification of electors 
in the States, they will claim the right to resist 
the act even to the point of revolution. Let 
me here say by way of pai'enthesis, God forbid 
we should have any more revolution ; but, sir, 
I am here to say — not in the language of threat- 
ening, but speaking for the State which I rep- 
resent, covered all over with glory as she is, 
having sent two hundred and fifty thousand of 
her brave volunteers to the field to put down 
the late rebellion — should traitor hands again 
fire on the flag, she is just as ready now as she 
was then to send five hundred thousand more 
men to crush out the fell spirit of rebellion and 
disunion. [Great applause in the galleries.] 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Doolit- 
TLE in the chair. ) The intei-ruption has been 
so frequent of late in the gallery that the Chair 
feels called upon to enforce the order of the 



Senate and to direct that the galleries be cleared. 
The Sergeant-at-Arms will clear the gallery on 
the right of the Chair. 

The Sergeant-at-Arms proceeded to execute 
the orders of the Presiding Officer. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I think the applause was 
an inadvertence on the part of the galleries, 
and I would be very glad if the Chair, on re- 
consideration, would reverse its order. I will 
almost pledge myself for the galleries that the 
disturbance will not be repeated. 

Mr. HOWARD. T hope so, too. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair 
will submit the question to the Senate whether 
the order to clear the galleries shall be reversed 
or not. 

The question being put, the order was re- 
versed. 

The" PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair 
understood the suggestion of the Senator from 
Kentucky to be that the order made by the Chair 
be reversed with the express understanding 
that if there is any repetition of the disturb- 
ance in the galleries the order will hereafter be 
strictly enforced. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. _ That is my understand- 
ing, and I hope it will never take place again. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, 
therefore, under the direction of the Senate, 
will withdraw the order to clear the galleries, 
with that understanding. 

Mr. YATES. Yes, sir, "State rights" is 
again the bugle note! "State rights," as 
though one refractory child in a family had the 
right to control not only all his brothers and 
sisters, but the father from whom he derived 
being and support. I had in the simplicity of 
my heart supposed that "State rights," being 
the issue of the war, had been decided. I had 
supposed that we had established the proposi- 
tion that there is a living Federal Government 
and a Congress of the United States. I do 
not mean a consolidated Government, but a 
central Federal Government which, while it 
allows the States the exercise of all their ap- 
propriate functions as local State governments, 
can hold the States well poised in their appro- 
priate spheres, can secure the enforcement of 
the constitutional giiarantees of republican gov- 
ernment, the rights and immunities of citizens 
in the several States, and carry out all the ob- 
jects provided for in the preamble of the Con-- 
stitution, "provide for the common defense," 
"promote the general welfare," " establish jus- 
tice," and "secure the blessings of liberty to 
ourselves and to our posterity." 

Is it to be pretended now that we are to leave 
to thirty-six States the determination of the 
fundamental question of citizenship? Can it 
be expected that the local politicians of the 
States will adjust upon a right basis the rela- 
tions of the freedmen? Why shall we throw 
this l)one of contention again into the States 
to breed a new and dangerous agitation? If 
we leave these questions to an outside power, 
to the Congress of the United States, who ex- 
ercises its power according to the Constitution 



and under the Constitution, even if it confers 
suffrage upon the freedmiin, all will submit and 
rejoice in the end. They are even now pre- 
pared to surrender these questions upon the 
ground of the late conquest of the Govern- 
ment. But if we leave theili to the States, then 
we have no security for the citizen ; we cannot 
have uniformity of legislation ; if we give up to 
the States the power to decide the fundamental 
question of citizenship upon which the life of 
the Government depends, then we must expect 
wrangling and distinctions of classes, which may 
result in a war quite as bloody and as fatal as 
that which recently has shrouded our land in 
the weeds of sorrow. 

Let us not commit the fearful error of our 
fathers by a departure from the organic prin- 
ciples of justice and equal rights, and sow the 
seeds of a future conflict of races, of future 
war and permanent disunion. 

Mr. President, while I do not agree with all 
the propositions contained in the able and mas- 
tei-ly speech of the Senator from Wisconsin, 
[Mr. DooLiTTLE,] yetldoagreewithhiminone 
proposition, and that is, that these States are 
not out of the Union. That was what we were 
fighting about. They appealed to the sword. 
They threw all they had and all they were into 
the contest, and they lost, and these States are 
still in the Union, and by the blessing of 
Almighty God they shall ever stay in this Union. 

But I agree with our late President that this 
is a most pernicious abstraction. I presume 
that the diiference between gentlemen on this 
question results from impressions that the 
legislation of Congress for their reorganiza- 
tion depends upon their status in this regard. 
It is not so at all. To illustrate: both the 
Senators from Wisconsin, [Messrs. Doolit- 
TLE and Howe,] while they disagree so widely 
on the question whether the States are in the 
Union, yet they sufficiently agree on all the 
questions which we are practically to consider. 
They both agree upon the proposition that to 
Congress is left the question of reopening our 
doors to the admission of Senators and Rep- 
resentatives from the rebel States. They both 
agree upon the other vital question, that these 
States are not to be permitted to resume their 
practical relation with the Union until they by 
their conduct show that they are willing to give 
.an unfeigned and heartfelt allegiance to the 
Union, or that they are willing to come into 
the Union upon terms which shall forever settle 
this question, and upon such a basis as will 
prevent the recurrence of another war, and 
secure, if not indemnity for the past, at least 
security for the future. But, sir, we can accom- 
modate both of these gentlemen without any 
trouble whatever. The States are in the Union 
in law ; they are out of the Union in fact. So 
fiir as any legislation that we propose to apply 
to them to preserve our territorial integrity 
and submission to the laws is concerned, they 
are in the Union, and yet we may regard the 
rebellious population as out of the Union for 
all purposes of representation until they comply 



with such just requirements as we may impose 
for securing protection to loyal men and pun- 
ishment to criminals. The case is anomalous ; 
national self-preservation is the paramount law 
of our action. We have nottreated them either 
as States in full fellowship, nor entirely as 
States without government. 

It is simply a question of fact whether they 
are in a condition to be restored to all their 
rights in the Union or not. Upon that question 
I am sorry to disagree with my friend from Wis- 
consin, now in the chair, [Mr. Doolittle.] I 
have regarded him as a statesman ; I still so 
regard him ; and since my acquaintance with 
him I have feelings for him warmer than admi- 
ration. But I cannot account for the delusion — 
I will take back that term, and say that he is 
vastly and lamentably at fault when he is will- 
ing to open our doors wide to the readmission 
of the rebellious States into full fellowship into 
the Union with their present hostile feelings to 
the United States without further guarantees on 
their part or protective legislation upon our part. 
Why, sir, look at the facts that boldly and de- 
fiantly stand out upon the record of southern 
disloyalty, and stare us like ghastly specters in 
the face. We see the Governor of Alabama 
appointing two rebel Senators judges of the 
supreme court but recently. We know that the 
only passport to southern office, to the Legis- 
lature and to Congress, is fidelity in the rebel 
army and in the rebel cause. We know there 
is a bitter and unrelenting hostility toward the 
freedmen who have been emancipated by the 
constitutional amendment, as is proven by the 
orders of General Terry in Virginia, General 
Sickles in South Carolina, General Thomas in 
Mississippi, and by the general order of Gen- 
eral Grant, interposing the strong arm of mili- 
tary authority to prohibit oppressive discrim- 
inations against the freedmen in those States. 
They are as defiant in their dangerous dogma 
of State sovereignty as when the war began. 
They are clamoring for the payment of the rebel 
debt. They are opposing the payment of the 
debt incurred by the United States. They are 
demanding compensation for their slaves. They 
treat our test oath as a nullitj'. They jeer_ our 
glorious flag. They caricature our institutions 
in their theaters and public assemblages ; and in 
their hearts they cui-se the day they were made 
to submit to. the authority of the Union. 

Mr. President, does that honorable Senator 
propose that these States shall be received into 
this Union, that the rebels shall be allowed to 
go to the polls and exercise the right of suf- 
frage, while the loyal men who have bared their 
breasts to the storm of battle in obedience to the 
call of Abraham Lincoln, and with his promise 
that they should be maintained in their freedom 
— yes, ^^ maintained,^ ^ that's the word — while 
they are disfranchised? While the tragedies of 
the cruel war, traitorously provoked, are fresh in 
our memories and the blood of our countrymen 
cries to us from the ground, is my friend from 
Wisconsin willing to turn over the government 
of those States to secessionists and rebels, to 



the virtual exclusion afid disfranchisement of 
the brave Union men who have borne aloft our 
flag amid the storm and thunder of battle ? Sir, 
until that promise of Abraham Lincoln is re- 
deemed, that the freedmen shall be "main- 
tained in their freedom," is made good to those 
men who wore the United States unifoi-m, those 
men who rallied under the glorious folds of our 
old flag by the side of our brave boys and min- 
gled their warm blood in the same current with 
theirs upon many a gory battle-field ; those men 
who flashed two hundred thousand bayonets in 
the face of Jefferson Davis and traitors, I will 
never consent that those States be received into 
full brotherhood in the Union. They shall be 
vouchsafed at least every right which the rebels 
themselves shall enjoy. 

And I appeal to you, Mr. President, I ap- 
peal to Senators, by the bloody memories of 
the war ; by the tears of the soldier' s widow and 
the soldier's orphan boy; by the suff'erings and 
miseries and death of those brave men who in 
obedience to God went forth to fight the battles 
of the country, and whose bones now lie in un- 
marked graves upon southern soil ; by the grand 
solemnities which surround the murder and 
memory of Abraham Lincoln; by the love we 
bear our country, for which they fought and fell ; 
and by all our hopes for lasting peace and per- 
manent Union, that now, having the power, we 
will plant the pillars of the Government upon 
the granite foundations of God's eternal justice 
and upon the undying principles of individual 
and universal human liberty. 

While I speak thus, I say to the Senator from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] that I will be as 
prompt as he whenever they by their conduct 
evince the proper spirit; whenever they show 
that they renounce their old ideas of allegiance 
to the South alone, and will give unfeigned, 
heartfelt allegiance to the Government, and 
will jiresent to us constitutions republican in 
form and laws equal and impartial to all, I will 
join that Senator and hail the ausnicious day 
when as of yore, on the laud and the sea, and 
over all the States reunited, high over all, shall 
float the star-spangled banner. 

Sir, there is one basis upon which these dif- 
ficulties can be settled, and only one, and that 
is to return to the fundamental principles which 
were aimed to be established by our fathers, 
and to give rights to those men whom in an 
evil hour they most reluctantly disfranchised. 
Vain is the hope of the statesman, however 
high he may be, who expects that we can set- 
tle these questions upon any other basis than 
upon the basis of the principles laid down in 
the Declaration of Independence. If this Con- 
gress does not adopt it, the next Congress will. 
There is (I say it with deference in this great 
presence) only one salvation. If you do not 
seize the splendid opportunity, the next Con- 
gress will. All your amendments must fail. 
They lack the motive power. They are like 
a w^atch with all its machinery beautifully 
adapted, but without the mainspring. They are 
without the motive power, that living element 



of republican Governments, the popular will ; 
and without that they cannot be adopted. Is it 
reasonable to suppose that even all the free 
States will adopt the amendment which has 
been reported by the honorable chairman of 
the committee on reconstruction? I simply 
submit the proposition, and know the answer 
of every gentleman. Is it reasonable to sup- 
pose that the slave States will either consent 
to curtail their representation one half, or that 
they will confer the right of franchise upon the 
freedmen ? And in the mean time are we to 
keep up a standing army or Freedmen's Bu- 
reau, with thousands of officials, to hold them 
in subjection to the Government? I do not 
say now that I may or may not vote for any of 
these amendments. It is not material to my 
proposition whether I do or not. I may vote 
for them in view of the one thousandth chance 
that they may pass. I consider the whole 
of them imperfect, and as postponing the 
period of restoration to a day far too remote 
for the future security and peace of the coun- 
try. It is entirely immaterial so far as the 
position I take is concerned, for I contend 
that Congress has the power now as fully and 
as completely in every respect as it could be 
given to them by any amendment to the Con- 
stitution, by general law, under the recent 
amendment, to secure the reorganization of 
the Government upon the basis of justice and 
equality. 

I believe it was the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] who said 
that he did not expect to wait until there was a 
change of heart in the southern people. I agi-ee 
with him, and more than that, I say that if we 
wait until the southern people shall learn to 
love the Yankees and to hate slavery and to 
love the Government by whose strong arm and 
chastening rod they have been whipped into 
obedience, the time will be long, and I fear so 
far in the future that in the meantime our long 
and dangerous delay and our omission to use 
the power we already clearly have might result 
in a calamitous c liange of parties and in the 
restoration of the rebellious States in a condi- 
tion quite as objectionable as when they first 
rebelled with all the chances and probabilities 
of a future war and final separation. 

I hope that Congress will not attempt the im- 
possible task of making the South' love the 
Union, but what I do hope, and what is reason- 
able to hope, is that we shall remove forever the 
causes which have divided us, and settle all dif- 
ferences upon principles which will prevent any 
cause of quarrel or division in the future, and 
lay the foundation for perpetual peace and 
union, and which can only be done upon the 
principle of equality to all, and removing all 
distinctions of class, race, color, or any pre- 
vious condition growing out of the institution 
of slavery. 

Sir, by the bill which I presented I nail the 
colors of universal suffrage to the masthead — 
not in South Carolina or Georgia or Kentucky, 
but I meet the vital issue of the hour, and pro- 



6 



claim that under the Constitution as amended 
it is not only our right but our duty to extend 
the suffrage to every American citizen in every 
State, and to all the country subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States. 

I also wish, by way of prelude to my argu- 
ment, to remark that the questions at issue are 
fundamental; they are organic, and we can 
ari-ive at no correct conclusions without inves- 
tigating all the rights — natural, civil, and polit- 
ical — to which every American citizen is enti- 
tled. 

It involves the settlemeil't of several ques- 
tions. 

What is slavery ? 

What is freedom? 

Who is a citizen ? 

Who makes, or how does a person become 
a citizen? 

What are the rights of a citizen? 

How are the rights of a citizen secured to 
him? 

These questions are asked not in reference 
to citizenship in some foreign Government, not 
in reference to the common law, but in refer- 
ence to the United States of America, where 
we have founded a Government upon the basis 
of equal laws and universal liberty. All these 
questions I shall not answer in detail, but all 
will be embraced in the positions I shall as- 
sume. I will only remark generally that in the 
United States, on account of the democratic 
features thereof, all the terms I have used have 
a distinctive national meaning, applicable to 
our nation alone. For instance, Webster, in 
giving the various definitions to the word 
"citizen," defines that in the United States 
a citizen means "a person, native or natural- 
ized, who has the privilege of exercising the 
elective franchise, or the qualifications which 
enable him to vote for others and to purchase 
and hold real estate." While I admit that in 
law others than voters may be citizens, in this 
country no man considers himself a full citizen 
till he has the right to vote. The minor does 
not consider himself free, "his own man," 
until he can vote. So of the foreigner ; and by 
universal consent the ballot is recognized as the 
badge of the American citizen. 

Since I introduced my bill, the honorable 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] has 
introduced a bill in which he founds the right 
to secure universal suffrage to all freemen in the 
rebellious States upon that clause of the Consti- 
tution which "guaranties to every State a re- 
publican government," and I understand him 
to found his argument upon the idea that before 
the adoption of the amendment to the Consti- 
tution, Congress had power to enforce the pro- 
visions of that guarantee in every State in the 
Union. I am sorry to disagree with the hon- 
orable gentleman, for the reason I have already 
stated, that under the late Constitution of the 
United States, as I understand it, our fathers 
in an evil hour compromised, and recognized 
the existence of slavery, and that under a de- 
cision of the Supreme Court of the United 



States it was decided that a man who was a 
slave, or who was the descendant of a slave, or 
who was liable to be bought and sold, or who 
was excluded from the society of our fathers at 
the time the Constitution was adopted, was not 
a citizen, and therefore under that decision the 
States had the power to exclude black persons 
from the exercise of the right of suffrage. The 
Senator from Massachusetts is right, however, 
in presenting that clause as part of his argu- 
ment, because under the amendment abolish- 
ing slavery no State constitution can be repub- 
lican in form which disfranchises any citizen of 
the United States. The bill of the distinguished 
Senator is objectionable because it is partial 
and operates only upon the rebellious States. 

All, however, turns upon the simple proposi- 
tion contained in the bill which I have ofiered, 
the guarantee to all citizens of their rights under 
the recent amendment to the Constitution. 

Then, sir, I come to the only proposition 
which is feasible, and which, if not adopted by 
this Congress, will be by the next. I say this 
with deference to others. 

The recent amendment abolishes slavery in 
all the States and Territories of the United 
States ; not in South Carolina or Georgia alone, 
but in Illinois and every other State, and by 
that amendment, as I understand the distin- 
guished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Guthrie] 
to admit — and I honor and thank him for the 
admission — all constitutions, laws, and clvilreg- 
ulations in support of slavery as a matter of 
course fall to the ground. Congress by this 
amendment attempted, what? It undertook to 
secure freedom to four millions of our people 
who had formerly been in bondage ; and how? 
It has been asked, if slavery is already abolished 
and all laws and institutions growing out of 
slavery fall to the ground, why pass a law by 
Congress to enforce that provision of the Con- 
stitution? I will tell yon why. Because a law 
is necessary b}' the very terms of the second 
clause of the amendment to give effect and 
operation to the clause abolishing slavery. 
"Congress shall have power," to do what? 
"To enforce;" enforce what? Enforce the 
foregoing clause of the Constitution abolish- 
ing slaveiy. How shall it enforce it? By legis- 
lation. What sort of legislation? By "appro- 
priate legislation." How " appropriate?" By 
legislation appropriate to the end in view. What 
Is the end in view? It Is the freedom of these 
four million human beings, who have been eman- 
cipated Into the people of the United States. 
My distinguished colleague asked the question, 
Is it possible that we will set four million human 
beings free in the United States and will not 
guaranty to them the protection of their civil 
rights? I extend the question, and I ask, shall 
we set four million human beings free in the 
United States and not extend to them their 
political rights ? But it Is said the right to vote 
is a mere political right. At the hazard of 
being a little tedious I shall attempt to show 
that civil and political rights, according to the 
construction of the courts, are entirely synony • 



mous. Wendell's Blackstone, volume one, page 
123, says: 

"And, therefore, the principal view of human law 
is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and 
enforce such rights as are absolute, which in them- 
selves arc few and simple; and then such rights as 
are relative, which arising from a variety of connec- 
tions will be far more numerous and more compli- 
cated." 

Does any Senator on this floor say that there 
is not the same duty to secure the relative or 
political rights to the citizen that there is to 
secure him in the enjoyment of his natural 
rights? The reason why it is made the first 
duty to secure to a man his natural rights is 
because they are first simply in order. First, 
natural rights from the necessity of the case, 
and then the relative rights, which are more 
numerous, are to be secured ; not that one is 
more important than the other, no more than 
in the orders of the Senate petitions are to be 
considered as more important than the consid- 
eration of bills because they are first intro- 
duced. They are alike equally important, and 
it is as much the duty of the Government to 
secure the political rights as it is the civil rights. 
On page 125, Blackstone says : 

"But every man when he enters into society gives 
up a part of his natural liberty as the part of so valu- 
able a purchase, and in consideration of receiving the 
advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to 
conform to those laws which the community has 
thought proper to establish."' 

What is a civil right ? It is such a limitation 
or extension of the natural right as is conferred 
by statute. That makes it a civil regulation ; 
that makes it a civil law ; that makes it a civil 
right. For instance, every man in a state of 
nature has a right to acquire, hold, and dispose 
of property, but when the Legislature interposes 
and by law says that he shall convey it by deed, 
or that the first deed i?ecorded shall be evidence 
of title, that is a civil regulation. 

Now, let me ask you whether in a state of 
nature, when men have organized themselves 
into a community, is it not the natural right of 
every man to have a voice in the affairs of that 
community? Is not that a natural right? If 
he confers that right upon representatives or 
upon somebody else to administer, and a law is 
passed declaring that he shall give expression to 
that voice by the ballot, then it becomes both a 
civil and political regulation at the same time. 
Sir, go back to the days of our colonial history, 
and in all our colonial assemblages, where our 
forefathers met to discuss the affairs pertaining 
to the colonies ; where they fired their hearts 
for the great Revolution in which they were 
soon to be engaged, how did they decide all 
matters of controversy? By a show of hands. 
Each man raising his hand voted whether or 
not the measure for taxation or for public im- 
provement or for educational purposes or for 
any other purpose should be adojDted. When 
it is proposed that he shall exercise that voice 
by a statutory provision establishing a ballot, 
does it become any less a natural right? Is it 
any less a civil right? It is a natural, civil, 
and political right. 



But again, to show that this is a distinction 
without a difference, I refer you to Blackstone, 
on the same page, wherein he says: 

"Political, therefore, or civil liberty, which is that 
of a member of society, is no other than natural lib- 
erty so far restrained by human laws (and no further) 
as is necessary and expedient for the general advan- 
tage of the public." 

The meaning of that is, that civil and polit- 
ical liberty are synonymous terms. Blackstone 
applies the same definition to both. I hope I 
shall be pardoned now if I refer to a decision 
of the Supreme Court which is conclusive upon 
that point. I quote from Judge Daniels, one 
of the assenting judges in the Dred Scott de- 
cision. He says in 19 Howard, page 476 : 

■'Hence it follows necessarily, that a slave, the pe- 
cuUiunor property of a master, and possessing within 
himself no civil nor political rights or capacities, can- 
not be a citizen. For who, it may be asked, is a cit- 
izen? What do the character and status of citizen 
import? ^Vithout fear of contradiction, it does not 
import the condition of being private property, the 
subject of individual power and ownership. Upon a 
principle of etymology alone, the term citizen, as de- 
rived from civitas, conveys the ideas of connection or 
identification with the State or Government, and a 
participation of its functions. But beyond this, there 
is not, it is believed, to be found, in the theories of 
writers on government or in any actual experiment 
heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen 
which has not been understood as conferring the act- 
ual possession and enjoyment or the perfect right of 
acquisition and enjoyment of an entire equality of 
privileges, civil and political." 

He declares it to be not only his own opinion, 
but that it is the universal opinion of all legal 
writers upon the question, that by the term cit- 
izen is meant one who is entitled to both civil 
and political rights. 

The object of the constitutional amendment 
was to secure freedom to the slave and to those 
who have suffered from the institution of Sa- 
vory. It will not be pretended that Congress 
ever meant to set four million slaves free, to 
emancipate them into freedom, and at the same 
time leave them without the civil and political 
rights which attach to the free citizen. And 
hence, sir, the Senate at this session have passed 
the bill introduced by my colleague [Mr. Trtsm- 
bull] to protect all persons in the United States 
in their civil rights, and also to provide courts 
and laws with adequate penalties for the vindi- 
cation of those rights. It provides that "the 
inhabitants, of every race and color, without 
any regard to the previous condition of slavery, ' ' 
shall have the same ' ' right to make and enforce 
contracts, to sue and be parties and give evi- 
dence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and 
convey real and personal property ; and to full 
and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for 
the security of person and property." Here, 
sir, I contend, we have fully established the prin- 
ciple, and upon the same principle have full 
right and constitutional power to pass the bill 
which I have proposed, protecting the inhabit- 
ants, of every race and color, without regard to 
any previous condition of slavery, in all their 
civil and political rights^ including the right of 
suffrage. 

The Dred Scott decision is referred to, to 
show that the negroes are not citizens; but 



8 



that decision was made under the Constitution 
of the United States before this amendment 
was adopted. That decision, overturning, as 
it did, the whole line of judicial authority, and 
abhorrent to the civilization and Christianity 
of the age in which we live, went so far as to 
say that the negro at the period of the adop- 
tion of the Constitution had no rights which a 
white man was bound to respect, and to lay 
down the doctrine that slavery could go into all 
the Territories of the United States, independ- 
ent of popular sovereignty, of the will of the 
people, or of the Constitution of the United 
States. But, sir, that decision is wiped out; 
it has gone down to a kindred doom with the 
institution which it was intended it should per- 
petuate ; and I now quote from the decision 
itself to show that under the existing state of 
affairs, under the constitutional amendment, the 
freedmen are citizens by the irresistible deduc- 
tions and inferences from the Dred Scott de- 
cision itself In the celebrated case of Dred' 
Scott vs. Sanford, which is reported in 19 How- 
ard, page 404, is the following language ; I read 
from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney: 

"The words, 'people of the United States' and 
' citizens ' are synonymous terms and mean the same 
thing. They both describe the political body, who, 
according to our republican institutions, form the 
sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the 
Government through their representatives. They are 
what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and 
every citizen is one of this people and are constit- 
uent members of this sovereignty." 

Now, sir, if that was the case, why was Dred 
Scott not a citizen ? We shall find out. The 
decision then proceeds to state why negroes 
were not included as a portion of the people 
and constituent members of the sovereignty: 

"Because they were at that time considered as a 
subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been 
subjugated by the dominant race, and whether eman- 
cipated or not, yet rema ined subj ect to their authority, 
and had no right or privileges but such as those who 
held the power and the Government might choose to 
grant them." 

Is not the Inference irresistible that If by any 
subsequent amendment of the Constitution they 
became a part of the people, they would be cit- 
izens and entitled to the same rights and privi- 
leges with all the other citizens of the United 
States? The decision goes on to quote the 
words of the Declaration of Independence : 
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 
all men are created equal," &c. The Chief 
Justice then proceeds to comment on that 
clause, as follows : 

"The general words above quoted would seem to 
embrace the whole human family, and if they were 
used in a similar instrument at this day would be so 
understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the 
enslaved African race were not intended to be in- 
cluded, and formed no partof tiio people who framed 
and adopted this Declaration ; for if the language, as 
understood at that day, would embrace them, the 
conduct of the distinguished men who framed the 
Declaration of Independence would have been utterly 
and flas;rantly inconsistent with the piiuciples they 
asserted; and insteadof the sympathy of mankind, to 
which tlicy so confidently appealed, they would have 
deservi d and received universal rebuke and repro- 
bation." 

And now what shall be said of us at this day, 



when they are clearly included in the terms of 
the Constitution, and by special clauses therein 
are made free i)eople, If we fail to carry out the 
full spirit and fair interpretation of the Consti- 
tution of the United States with regard to this 
long oppressedrace of our fellow-citizens? Will 
we not be utterly and flagrantly Inconsistent if 
now, by the very terms of the Constitution, we 
are required to treat them as people and as 
citizens, and we fail to do so? 

Mr. SAULSBURY. While the honorable 
Senator is on this point, will he allow me to 
put a qucstiorl to him? 

Mr. YATES. Certainly. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. Under the registering 
law of the State of Maryland more than one 
half of the former voters of that State are ex- 
cluded from the right of suflVage, although they 
have never been convicted of any crime. Many 
of the most prominent citizens of the State, 
who have never been convicted of crime, or sus- 
pected by any fair-minded man of having been 
guilty of crime, are excluded from the right of 
voting. Are those men, more than one half 
the former voters of the State, who are now 
excluded from voting In that State, citizens, 
or are they not? 

Mr. YATES. I will answer that question in 
the course of my remarks, and will only make 
the statement now, that neither nny State in 
this Union, nor the Congress of the United 
States, has power under the Constitution or 
under the decision of the Supreme Court to 
deprive a citizen of the prerogative of the elect- 
ive franchise. That is the position I assume. 
I have but just now read from the decision of 
the Supreme Court, by Chief Justice Taney 
himself, to show that the "people" of the 
United States were the " citizens" of the Uni- 
ted States. Who made the Constitution of the 
United States ? " We the people" "do ordain 
and establish this Constitution." Did the Con- 
stitution make the people of the United States? 
No, sir. The moment a man Is a freeman, by 
any law, by any constitution in the United 
States, that ma.n becomes one of the body- 
politic. He passes Into the body of the sov- 
ereignty, as it is termed by the decision of 
the Supreme Court. He is one of the people. 
He is one of the citizens of the United States 
of America; and as I shall presently show, no 
State, nor Congress, except by constitutional 
amendment, has any right whatever to deprive 
a citizen entirely of the right of suffrage. 

I will read further from the same decision. 
This decision goes on to say, on page 420 of 
the same volume : 

" No one, we presume, supposes that any change in 
public opinion or feeling in relation to this unfortu- 
nate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or m 
this country, should induce the court to give to the 
words of the Constitution a more liberal construction 
in their favor than they were intended to bear when 
the instrument was framed and adopted." *_ * 
* * "If any of its provisionsaredeeraed unjust, 
there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself 
by which it may be amended, but while it remains 
unaltered, it must be construed now as it was under- 
stood at the time of its adoption." 



9 



But it has been altered ; the negro is no longer 
regarded as a slave or belonging to a subject 
race, but as the gentleman from Mai-ylaud, 
[Mr. Johnson,] even, admits, he is a man, and 
susceptible of the highest cultivation. 

It is in the light of this new estimate of the 
freedman that we are to consider the provisions 
for his emancipation now in the Constitution, 
and to confer upon him the full and equal en- 
joyment of all his rights. Sir, I do not believe 
our fathers had any such low estimate as was 
attributed to them in that decision, but that 
they did most reluctantly compromise for rea- 
sons before stated. I vindicate them from the 
black stain implied by any construction which 
would go to show that they meant "all men" 
except the negro "are created equal." 

I said, I did not believe the framers of the 
Declaration meant to exclude any particular 
class or race of men, when they declared. all 
men equal. Sir, facts are stubborn, things, and 
no logic, not even of the most astute^nd pro- 
found lawyer, can destroy the force of any im- 
portant fact. It is a stern, stubborn, historical 
fact that at the time of the adoption of the 
Constitution the freedmen, inhabitants of the 
States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New 
York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, were 
not only citizens of those States but possessed 
the franchise of electors on equal terms with 
the other citizens, and, sir, were not only in- 
cluded in the body of the people of the United 
States by whom the Constitution was made, 
but voted on the question of its adoption. Is 
it not strange that the framers meant to say that 
they were not included in the Declaration of In- 
dependence who were suffered to vote whether 
or not the Constitution should be ordained and 
established? 

There is another stubborn fact which goes to 
show that the fathers did not design to make 
the distinction in favor of white men only, and 
that fact is this, that while the Articles of Con- 
federation were under the consideration of Con- 
gress, on the 23d June, 1778, the delegates from 
South Carolina moved to amend the fourth of 
the fundamental Articles of the Confederation, 
which reads as follows : 

"The free inhabitants of each of these States, pau- 
pers, vagabouds, and fugitives from justice excepted, 
shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities 
of the free citizens of the several States." 

They moved to amend this fourth article by 
inserting after the word "free," and before the 
word "inhabitants," the word "white;" so 
that the privileges and immunities of general 
citizenship would be secured only to white 
persons. Only two States voted for it, while 
eight voted against it, and the vote of one State 
was divided, and the language of the article 
remained unchanged and went into the Con- 
stitution of the United States without any re- 
striction to white persons. 

But whether or not the fathers meant to ex- 
clude free colored persons, the decision in the 
Dred Scott case was made under the Consti- 
tution before the recent amendment, and the 



court, in the following emphatic language, leaves 
the inference irresistible that the decision would 
be different in case of an amendment of that 
instrument. 

I quote from 19 Howard, page 426 : 

"No one, we presume, supposes that any change in 
public opinion or feeling in relation to this unfortu- 
nate race in the civilized nations of Europe, or in this 
country, should induce the court to give to the words 
of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their 
favor than they were intended to bear when the in- 
strument was framed and adopted." * * * .* 
" If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is 
a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which 
it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, 
it must be construed now as it was understood at the 
time of its adoption." 

The meaning of this, sir, was that a slave or 
a descendant of a slave could not be a citizen 
under the Constitution as originally adopted, 
and that it must be so construed until the Con- 
stitution is altered. It has been altered, and 
conforms to public opinion of the present day, 
which demands the recognition of the manhood 
of the negro. 

And there is not a word in that whole decis- 
ion \Yhich, under the Constitution as altered, 
does not go to support the proposition that the 
freedman, under the amendment, stands upon 
the same footing of civil and political equality 
with the white man ; subject to the same stat- 
utory disabilities, and entitled to all the rights 
and privileges of the white man. 

Now, sir, I come to the point to which the 
Senator from Delaware has referred, and ac- 
cording to the decision relied upon especially 
by that Senator, the decision in the Dred Scott 
case, I here take the position that Congress has 
no power to make a citizen, except to natural- 
ize a foreigner, or to make him a citizen by 
naturalization ; nor has a State any such right. 

Mr. S AULSBUR Y. Had the State of Mary- 
land the right to enact that law? That is my 
question. 

Mr. YATES. The Sfcate of Maryland can- 
not exclude any man in the United States who 
has in himself the inherent rights, the God- 
given rights of manhood and freedom. Mary- 
land cannot do it, and Illinois cannot do it, 
and all the power of the Congress of the United 
States cannot do it, except by an amendment 
to the Constitution conferring upon Congress 
that power. 

I refer next to the same decision upon the 
question of the rights of citizens in the several 
States. I admit that according to this decision 
every State had a right to exchide an African 
citizen, and the constitution of that State or 
the law of that State was not anti-republican in 
its form ; but when a man becomes a citizen of 
the United States he cannot be excluded by 
any State. I read from the same decision, page 
423 of the same volume, where you will see 
that Chief Justice Taney was trying to show 
that all these State laws would be unconstitu- 
tional if the negro was a citizen, that he could- 
come into the State in spite of the power of 
the constitution of the State and claim the rights 
of a citizen, and the Chief Justice goes on to 



10 



show what would be the consequences of such 
a construction : 

"If persons of the African race are citizens of a 
State and of the United States they would be entitled 
to all of these privileges and immunities in every 
State, and the .State could not restrict them; for they 
would hold these privileges and imm\inities under the 
paramount authority of the Federal Government, and 
its courts wQuld be bound to enforce them, the consti- 
tution and laws of the State to the contrary notwith- 
standing. And if the States could limit or restrict 
them, or place the party in an inferior grade, this 
clause of the Constitution would be unmeaning, and 
could have no operation, and would give no rights to 
the citizen when in another State. lie would have 
none but what the State itself chose to allow him. 
This is evidently not the construction or meaning of 
the clause in question. It guariinties rights to the 
citizen, and the State cannot withhold them." 

If the Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessendex] 
were now in liis seat I would show him where 
the penalty is for such a law as I propose. 
Whenever a law in any State is unconstitutional 
the courts are bound to enforce the Constitu- 
tion. There is the penalty. We can receive 
them or not receivethcir members-electof Con- 
gress or members of the State Legislature. 
There is penalty again. And now, if such legis- 
lation is not absolutely necessary, yet it is 
highly expedient that at least a declaratory law 
should be passed so (hat uniform construction 
and uniform obedience and submission to the 
Constitution may be secured from all the States. 

Now, sir, I come to the other proposition, 
and it is equally clear, that neither Congress 
nor a State make a citizen, except that Congress 
may naturalize foreigners, and is founded on 
good sense and reason. I read now from page 
419, Chief Justice Taney's decision: 

" The Constitution upon its adoption obviously took 
from the States all power by any subsequent legisla- 
tion to introduce as a citizen into the political family 
of the United States anyone, no matter where he was 
born, or what might be his character or condition ; 
and it gave to Congress the power to confer this char- 
acter upon those only who were born outside of the 
dominions of the United States." 

The decision goes on to say that therefore 
no law of Congress, or of any State can deprive 
a citizen of his rights. 

Sir, there was one view upon which this de- 
cision did deprive the freedraan of the right to 
vote. What was that ? It was upon the same 
view that a woman is deprived of the right to 
vote. What was that? Because he could not 
come to the support of and defend the Govern- 
ment ; and I have the decision of the Supreme 
Court here, which is irresistible on that point. 
If a man can come to the support and defense 
of the Government, he is necessarily one of the 
body-politic and one of the people of the Uni- 
ted States. 1 dwell upon these jioints at some 
length knowing that they are tedious, but I am 
making them not only for the Senate but for 
the country, for it is the reflex influence of our 
great constituency on Congress to which I look 
for the passage of the bill I })ropose. In the 
same volume, page 415, the Chief Justice cites 
the case of New Hampshire to show that the 
negroes were not citizens under the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and gives as a rea- 



son that they were not enrolled in the militia 
of the United States. Let us see what he says : 

"The alien is excluded, because, being born in a 
foreign country, he cannot be a member of the com- 
munity until he is naturalized; but why are the Af- 
rican race, born in the State, not permitted to share 
in one of the highest duties of the citizen? The an- 
swer is obvious, lie is not, by the institutions and 
laws of the State, numbered among its people. He 
forms no part of the sovereignty of the State, and is 
not therefore called on to uphold and defend it." 

The moment the United States of America per- 
mitted the name of the freedraan to be enrolled 
on that list of immortal names who bore the ban- 
ner of the Republic in triumph, and planted its 
victorious folds upon the battlements of the en- 
emy, this Government, by the proclamation of 
Abraham Lincoln, declaring that his freedom 
should be maintained, and by its pledge made to 
the civilized world, said that he should be not 
only a citizen in war but a citizen in peace. I 
know that we are met on every hand Ijy the argu- 
ment th#t women are excluded from the right 
of suffrage. The answer to that is very easy 
and very plain. I am not proposing to amend 
the Constitution of the United States ; and there 
is no power in the Constitution to confer the 
right of suffrage upon a woman. According 
to the spirit of the decision to which I have 
referred, and by the universal consent of man- 
kind, she is not a part of the body-politic so 
as to exercise the right of suffrage. Now, if 
these gallant gentlemen are so anxious to con- 
fer sufi'rage on the ladies, and have them min- 
gle in the broils of parties and elections, let 
them bring in an amendment, and I am not sure 
that I will not vote for it. 

When it is asked why may she not vote since 
she is often a tax-payer, I answer that there are 
restrictions which are inevitable. Minority is 
such a restriction. Woman is excluded by the 
inevitable proprieties of the case. The ballot 
is in politics what the bayonet is in war. Those 
only wdio wield the sword are, by the universal 
consent of both ancient and modern civiliza- 
tion, supposed capable of wielding the ballot. 
We should most certainly violate the proprie- 
ties of humanity were we to compel the softer 
sex to take part in the bloody work of physical 
warfare. And yet, sir, to thrust woman into 
the arena of political strife is quite as abhorrent, 
in a degree, and would be quite as destructive 
of her womanly qualities, as to compel her to 
take part in the shock of arms. 

The only exception to the rule of ancient 
times, that woman should not bear arms, is to 
l5e found in traditions regarding the Amazons. 
They are represented a very warlilcc race of 
women as having deprived themselves of the 
right breast, that they might be the better able 
to wield the weapons of warfare. Would my 
friend from Missouri [Mr. Hexdersox] per- 
mit such an act of barbarity in the case of the 
elegant and miijestic ladies of his State, so re- 
markalde for -their beauty and so irresistible 
in the fascination of their womanly charms? I 
know what his answer would be. Well, would 
he do what is worse, have her do morally what 



11 



the Amazons did physically, by thrusting her 
into the strifes and stern conflicts of politics 
and elections, part with those softer, more deli- 
cate, more lovable qualities, which constitute 
her the ornament of society, and which, as 
Edmund Burke says, "inspire in man the high- 
est and noblest passions of human life? " ■ I am 
not proposing to amend the Constitution of the 
United States. If any of the gentlemen who 
propose to amend the Constitution wish to dis- 
play their gallantry, let them propose to amend 
it in this respect. There are some reasons 
which are applicable to them which are not 
applicable to the male portion of the people. 
They do not bear all the burdens of the Gov- 
ernment ; do not work the roads ; they do not 
fight in the Army. 

I come, then, to the question, how is a citizen 
of the United States made? How does a man 
become a citizen of the United States? Those 
who were citizens of the United States at the 
adoption of the Constitution were the people. 
"We, the people, do ordain and establish this 
Constitution." The words "people" and " cit- 
izen" are synonymous, as I have shown. Now, 
sir, I show that by the amendment to the Consti- 
tution of the United States the former slave has 
become a freeman ; his disability is removed ; 
he is no longer one of a subject race; he can- 
not be bought and sold ; he steps from his con- 
dition of slavery into the family of freedom, 
becomes one of the body-politic, and is one of 
the sovereign people. And, sir, if no State can 
make him a citizen, and if the Congress of the 
United States cannot make him a citizen, ex- 
cept through an alteration of the Constitution 
so as to confeFaipon Congress the power, then 
he never can be a citizen except through the 
o-peration of the recentamendment, and heand 
his descendants forever must be deprived of 
this great right of franchise. Sir, they are cit- 
izens, or they are slaves. They are subjects, or 
they are sovereigns. This is exclusively a white 
man's Government, or it is a Government for 
all men. 

What, then, is the objection to passing the 
bill for which I contend ? It is evident that you 
cannot confer freedom upon the slave without 
exercising your power under the Constitution. 
If you go before the people with constitutional 
amendments they will be voted down in the 
slave States and in some of the free States. 
The result will be that the people, determined 
to do justice to this class of men, will find'the 
power where it properly belongs, in the consti- 
tutional amendment securing to them freedom, 
and in the subsequent clause which makes it 
the duty of Congress to enforce by approj^riate 
legislation the prohibition of slavery and to 
secure fall freedom, civil and political, to all 
citizens. 

Why will we not manfullymeet the issue, and 
exercise the power we already have, and by a 
general law of Congress enforce the provision 
of the Constitution in all the States alike — in 
Illinois and Tennessee, in Maine and in South 
Carolina? I deny the conclusion of the Sena- 



tor from Missouri that there is reason to believe 
the Supreme Court, even under the hard ruling 
of the Dred Scott case, would decide the law 
unconstitutional. 

What court, aftertheDred Scott decision, will 
again incur the infamy of all" history by such a 
decision as this would be against justice and 
the enlightened convictions of the wise and 
good everywhere? 

I know what the politician's objection is. 
The politician's objection is, "Why take this 
out of the hands of the people of the States?" 
Sir, we do not take it out of the hands of the 
people of the States. The people of the States 
have by the Constitution conferred the power 
upon us ; they have placed the responsibility 
upon us ; and they will brand us with moral 
cowardice if, waiting to pass amendments which 
never can be adopted, we fail to exercise the 
power which we clearly have. 

I like the amendment of the Senator from 
Misssouri, [Mr. Henderson,] but it can never 
be adopted. But I am oijposed to it because we 
have already the power in the Constitution to 
do the same thing. Is there any statesman here 
who dares rise in his place and say that we have 
the right to secure to the freedman all his civil 
rights, to give him the right to enforce con- 
tracts, to testify and be a party to suits, to 
acquire, hold, and dispose of property, but 
cannot secure him in his most essential right, 
the right by which he protects himself in the 
enjoyment of all his civil rights, of his person, 
of his family, his Mfe, and his reputation ? I 
say, sir, that you cannot abolish slavery, you 
cannot secure freedom to the slave unless, by 
appropriate legislation, you pass a bill to give 
him that freedom in all the States and Terri- 
tories of the United States. 

Sir, let gentlemen come forward and meet the 
issue like men. Let them come forward and do 
what they have by the 'Constitution the clear 
power to do, and that is a sine qua non in 
order to carry into effect the constitutional pro- 
hibition of slavery. As for me, I would rather 
face the music and meet the responsibility like 
a man and send to the people of the State of 
Illinois the boon of universal suffrage and of a 
full and complete emancipation than meet the 
taunt of northern demagogues that I would 
force suffrage upon North Carolina and Ten- 
nessee and Delaware while I had not the cour- 
age to prescribe it for our own free States., Sir, 
it will be the crime of the century if now, having 
the power, as we clearly have, we lack the nerve 
to do the work that is given us to do. 

Let me say to my Republican friends, you 
are too late. You have gone too far to recede 
now. Four million people, one seventh of your 
whole population, you have set free. Will you 
start back appalled at the enchantment your 
own wand has called up? The sequences of 
your own teachings are upon you. As for me, 
I start not back appalled when universal suf- 
frage confronts me. When the bloody ghost 
of slavery rises, I say, "Shake your gory locks 
at me; I did it." I accept the situation. I 



12 



fight not against the logic of events or the de- 
crees of Providence. I expected it, sir, and 
I meet it half way. I am for universal suf- 
frage. I bid it ' ' all hail 1 " "all hail 1 ' ' 

Four million pcojile set free I What will pro- 
tect them '! The ballot. What alone will give 
us a peaceful and harmonious South? The 
ballot to all. What will quench the fires of dis- 
cord, give us back all the States, a restored 
Union, and make us one people? The ballot, 
and that alone. Is there no other way? None 
other under the sun. There is no other sal- 
vation. 

Senators, go to the country with it. Write it 
upon the sky. Inscribe it upon your banners, 
and hang them on the outer walls. It is the 
flaming symbol of victory. Sir, tell me not that 
"the people will vote us down on this propo- 
sition." Address that argument to cowards. 
' ' With the free and the brave it avails nothing. ' ' 
You give the white rebel the right to tax the 
loyal freedman, and to impose whatever bur- 
dens he pleases upon him, and you call that 
freedom. 

Liberty without equality is no boon. Talk 
not to me of civil without political emancipa- 
tion ! It is the technical pleading of the law- 
yer ; it is not the enlarged view of the states- 
man. If a man has no vote for the men and 
the measures which tax himself, his family and 
his property and all which determine his repu- 
tation, that man is still a slave. You say that 
the citizen may have all his rights, to testify in 
courts, to enforce contracts, to acquire and dis- 
pose of property ; but he shall not have his most 
essential right, the right to vote, because, you 
say, the right to vote is not a natural or a civil 
right, but a political right. Suppose that is 
true: what of it? It is a distinction without a 
diflference. It is a special plea, and too narrow 
for statesmanship. The only way to give effect 
to your constitutional amendment — the only 
practical way — is to exercise the power which 
you have to secure every right, natural, civil, 
political, to all the people. 

I here positively deny that we can give effect 
to the constitutional amendment giving free- 
dom to the slave, and yet debar him of the only 
weapon with which he can protect himself in 
that freedom. Emancipation, in the light of our 
Government, means not only the breaking of 
the chains of slavery, not only destroying the 
status oi' the slave, but it means conferring upon 
him every right which every American citizen 
enjoys. The legislation which secures the bal- 
lot is the only ' ' appropriate' ' legislation. Your 
Freedmcn's Bureaus are well enough as a tem- 
porary measure : but if you will give the freed- 
man the liallot, he needs no such law. Give 
him equality in fact, the law will follow. The 
laws as they are for all other persons will be 
all he needs. Ciive him the ballot, and he will 
become an identified element in society, and 
the politicians who now jeer and deride him, 
who point to bis infirmities, will pander to 
him, and he will become self-sustaining. 

Sir, the ballot will finish the negro question ; 



it will settle everything connected with this 
question. Give the freedman the ballot, and 
we need no Freedmen's Bureau, we need no 
military regime, we need no vast expenditures, 
we need no standing army. The ballot will be 
his standing army. The ballot is the cheap 
and iinpregnable fortress of liberty. I may be 
pardoned for quoting the oft-quoted stanza: 
" There is a weapon surer yet 

And better than the bayonet; 

A weapon that comes down as still 
As snow-flakes fall upon the sod, 

And executes a freeman's will 
As lightning does the will of God; 

A weapon that no bolts nor locks 

Can bar— it is the ballot-box." 

The ballot will lead the freedman over the 
Red sea of our troubles. It will be the brazen 
serpent, upon which he can look and live. It 
will be his pillar of cloud by day and his pillar 
of fire by night. It will lead him to Pisgah's 
shining height, and across Jordan's stormy 
waves, to Canaan's fair and happy land. Sir, 
the ballot is the freedman' s Moses. So far as 
man is concerned, I might say that Mr. Lin- 
coln was the Moses of the freedman ; but who- 
ever shall be the truest friend of human free- 
dom, whoever shall write his name highest upon 
the horizon of public vision as the friend of 
human liberty, that man — and I hope it may 
be the present President of the United States — 
will be the Joshua to lead the people into the 
land of deliverance. 

Mr. President, there is one clause of the Con- 
stitution which I confess, when I commenced 
examining the Constitution to find this power 
in favor of equality, seemed to me an objection 
to the exercise of power which I have proposed, 
and that is this clause in section two, article one: 

"The House of Representatiyes shall be composed 
of members chosen every second year by the people 
of the several States, and the electors in each State 
shall have the qualifications reciui.site tor electors of 
the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." 

If there was any force in that provision of 
the Constitution Ijefore the present amend- 
ment was adopted, there is none now. If the 
States could exclude an elector or any citizen 
from the right of suffrage before the adoption 
of the amendment, they cannot do so now, and 
why? Because the amendment being the last 
clause inserted in the Constitution, repeals every 
former clause in conflict with it. It is thesub- 
sequent organic act of the people, and by the 
adoption of this amendment every freedman 
becomes one of the people, a citizen of the 
United States, and no Legislature has any 
power to disfranchise him. It has the right to 
regulate the qualifications of whom? Of elect- 
ors ; of those men who have a right to vote ; of 
those men who do vote. It can restrict them by 
certain limitations and qualifications. But does 
the word "regulate '" imply a power to destroy, 
or does it mean to preserve? The word "reg- 
ulate" means to make rules. Its derivation is 
from the Latin word 7-egula, a rule. It is to pre- 
scribe qualifications for the citizens, for those 
who are entitled to vote, but there is no power 
whatever to desti'oy the rights of a citizen or 



18 



to disfranchise a citizen ; and though the freed- 
man might have been disfranchised before the 
amendment, because not then a citizen, he is 
now a citizen by the operation of the amend- 
ment, and there is no power in the State to 
disfranchise him. 

Mr. Clay, when he contended that Congress, 
under the power in the Constitution "to regu- 
late commerce ' ' among the several States, ' ' had 
the right and the power to build up commerce, 
to establish lines of steamers between this 
country and foreign countries, and to build 
railroads between the several States," never 
claimed that under that power ' ' to regulate com- 
merce' ' Congress had a right to destroy com- 
merce. And there was one universal opinion 
among the Democratic party that the word 
' ' regulate' ' simply meant to prescribe the rules 
and regulations by which commerce already in 
existence should be carried on. This clause 
means that the States shall determine, not who 
shall vote, but when, how, and where the elect- 
ors shall vote, and that it may determine the 
time and place and manner in which they shall 
vote, and impose restrictions, not disfranchise- 
ment. 

I can make this question plain to any one. 
I ask the Senator from Oregon whether the 
Legislature of the State of Oregon can ever 
disfranchise him — can ever deprive him of his 
God-given right of suffrage? I ask the Sena- 
tor from Minnesota whether there is any power 
in that State to deprive me of the right of fran- 
chise if I remove there? Is there any power 
to deprive any of my descendants of that right ? 
Is there any power to dejirive any of the people 
of the United States of that rigjit? If the power 
exists, and it can exclude me, may it not ex- 
clude one half or three fourths of the people, 
and leave the governing power in the hands ot 
an oligarchy? 

I ask you whether the State of South Caro- 
lina can have a provision that no Yankee shall 
vote in that State? If they could, they would 
adopt it with a will and a vengeance. Can any 
State in this Union decide that no German shall 
exercise the right of suffrage? I very much 
doubt the constitutionality of the law of Mas- 
sachusetts, which says that the German shall 
not vote until he can read the English language, 
because that may amount to a virtual disfran- 
chisement of some. I can say that it would 
be a very inexpedient law anyhow, for some 
of the best \»oting that is done in this country 
is pure unadulterated German. Suppose that 
Brigham Young should organize a sort of im- 
periuvi in imperio in Utah, and after that State 
was admitted into the Union the Legislature 
should decide that none but disciples of the 
Mormon faith should vote, or, as all tests of 
religion are excluded by the Constitution, sup- 
pose that State were to decide that no man who 
had not two wives should be allowed the right 
of suffrage, would it not be the duty of Con- 
gress to interfere and protect the right of the 
citizens who may go into that State ? 

I will ask another question. Suppose, as has 



often been the case, a white man is declared a 
slave and he becomes free, is there any power in 
the State of Maine or any other State in this Union 
to disfranchise him, to take away from him en- 
tirely the right of suffrage? You will answer, no. 
Well, sir, does the tinge of complexion alter 
the inalienable, the intrinsic, the inherent, the 
God-given rights of the American citizen? I 
admit that the States may prescribe qualifica- 
tions, not to destroy but to preserve the elective 
franchise of the freeman. There may be regis- 
try laws to protect the purity of the ballot and 
to prevent frauds; the minor under twenty- 
one years of age may be excluded. In the very 
nature of things there must be a period of ma- 
jority affixed to infancy ; but do you deprive that 
minor of the right to vote altogether ? No, sir. 
'■'■Dormitur aliquando jus, moritur nunquam^' 
— "the right may sleep, but it dies never." 

But there is another i^oint in this article one, 
section two, to which I desire to call attention. 
Observe that the clause reads : 

"The House of Representatives," Ac, "shall be 
chosen every second year by the people of the several 

States." 

Now, who are the people of the several States ? 
Are they not the whole people? If there are 
any people in the several States not included in 
this clause, who are they? But Judge Taney 
says that people and citizens are synonymous. 
And it has been universally understood that the 
people of the States means all male citizens 
thereof over twenty-one years of age. There 
is no limitation in the words of the Constitution, 
and there can have been none, if by the people 
that formed the Constitution was meant the 
whole people of all the States, granting the 
exception as to the subject race according 
to the Dred Scott decision. But that excep- 
tion no longer existing, then the words ' peo- 
ple of the several States ' ' must and do mean 
the whole people thereof, minors and women 
excepted. 

Mr. President, I had intended, in the course 
of these remarks, to present my views against 
that class of legislation which is designed to 
secure what is called intelligent suffrage. I 
shall not now argue the point, but will merely 
say that I am unalterably opposed to any legis- 
lation whatever which shall determine the rights 
of the citizen by any test of wealth, intelligence, 
birth, or rank. I wish to say to my Repub- 
lican Union friends that whenever they admit 
that principle, the test of intelligence, they 
admit away their argument. If we prescribe 
intelligence for the negro and not for the white 
man, it is unequal, it is class legislation. That 
is not the shibboleth of equality of rights for 
all, which you have been crying. Well, if we 
apply it to all who cannot read or write, we 
exclude a large portion of our fellow-citizens 
who have always since the foundation of the 
Government, for eighty-five years past, exer- 
cised the right of suffrage, and exercised it 
well. Why now exclude them ? Why, to reach 
the case of the poor freeman, and in order to 
inflict a tyrannous and barbarous restriction 



14 



npon him, exclude those who for eighty-five 
years have exercised the right of suffrage, and 
exercised it well ? Sir, such a proposition as that 
cannot obtain five votes in any western Legis- 
lature. The i>arty which commits itself to an 
exclusion of those men, who for eighty-five 
years have exercised this inestimable right of 
freemen, is already doomed, and ought to be 
doomed forever 

I am not opposed to intelligence. I believe 
that intelligence and virture are the rock-bound 
foundations of our national prosperity and our 
national perpetuity. But if the success of our 
institutions depends more upon the one than 
the other — and I think they are inseparable for 
this purpose — it depends more on virtue. The 
poor loyal slave of the South was more religious 
and more loyal than his slave-master, and almost 
as intelligent, perhaps, as the mass of the whites 
themselves. While I believe it might possibly 
be safe for the country to permit all to vote, I do 
not think it would be safe for the country to 
exclude either class altogether, or any large 
mass of the people. 

I believe in the foundation theories of our 
Government, that there is more intelligence 
and more virtue in all the people than in any 
part of the people. That is the doctrine for 
which I contend. I contend that the strong 
common sense of the populace of America is a 
safe element in this Government. 

The ballot is the greatest educator. . Let a 
man have an interest in the Government, a 
voice as to the men and measures by which his 
taxes, his property, his life, and his reputation 
shall be determined, and there will be a stimu- 
lus to education for that man. 

As the elective franchise has been extended 
in this country we have seen education become 
more universal. Look throughout all our north- 
ern States at our schools and colleges, our acad- 
emies of learning, our associations ; the pulpit, 
the press, and the numerous agencies for the 
promotion of intelligence, all the inevitable off- 
spring of our free institutions. Here is the high 
training which inspires the eloquence of the 
senate, the wisdom of the cabinet, the address 
of the diplomatist, and which has developed 
and brought to light that intelligent and ener- 
getic mind which has elevated the character and 
contributed to the prosperity of the country. It 
is the ballot which is the stimulus to improve- 
ment, which fires the heart of youthful ambition, 
which stimulates honorable aspiration, which 
penetrates the thick shades of the forest, and 
takes the poor rail-splitter by the hand and 
points him to the shining height of human 
achievement, or which goes into the log hut of 
the tailpr boy and opens to him the avenue to 
the presidential mansion. 

There will be risk, it is said, in so much ig- 
norance in the body of electors. Has there not 
always been risk? Will there not always be 
risk in every democratic Government? Has 
not Europe poured annually her millions into 
our borders, some of whom cannot read or write, 
and some of whom cannot speak our language? 



Have any of these Senators who propose to 
prescribe a qualification of intelligence ever 
thought of amending the naturalization laws, 
so as to require from foreigners that they should 
read and write? 

Sir, the masses may err, but it is not to their 
interest to err. If they do err, they are always 
ready to correct the mistakes which passion and 
prejudice have brought upon them. But how is 
it with an aristocracy? Look at this mournful 
illustration ; look at the rebellion of the edu- 
cated slave oligarchy of the South ; look at the 
devastations of the bloody war which resulted 
from that rebellion. History, upon many a dark 
and bloody page, gives sad and mournful evi- 
dence that the limitation of the powers of Gov- 
ernment to the educated oligarchy or to an 
individual has resulted in wicked machinations 
against the welfare of the people, in the decay 
of empire, in bloody wars, leaving feai'ful 
devastations in the track of time. 

Why, sir, I will say that there has been in 
all time no usurpation, no conspiracy against 
the rights of the freemen, except upon the spe- 
cious plea of superior intelligence in the usurper 
or conspirators. We shall have to risk some- 
thing. So we shall, sir, and we must trust that 
one ignorant force will counterpoise another 
in the future as it has in the past. 

But, sir, if we prescribe intflligence as a 
guide, what grade of intelligence shall we have? 
When we propose to say that a man who can 
barely read and write shall vote, suppose I move 
to amend your proposition, adding that the man 
who understands English grammar and the 
ground rules of arithmetic alone shall vote ; 
suppose I move to amend by saying that he 
shall have a liberal common-school education ; 
suppose I move to amend by saying that he 
shall have graduated with academic honors. 
Sir, that is the ai-gument ad absurdum. The 
only safe rule is to extend the franchise to all, 
that all the virtue, all the intelligence, all the 
practical common sense, all the wisdom, and 
all the learning of all the people shall be em- 
ployed in the administration of the affairs of 
the Government. I admit that there are restric- 
tions which, as I have said, are inevitable ; they 
must be continued, and must be made appli- 
cable to all. They are the mere regulation of 
the suffrage. 

I was never a "Native American," although 
much of the foreign vote was cast against the old 
Whig party to which I belonged;" but I am like 
the noble old Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] 
when he said, "I am willing to give to every 
man every right that I possess," and if by 
meritorious endeavor, if by playing well my 
part, if by developing any moral and intellec- 
tual faculties, I can attain to a higher position 
of eminence than he, then give me credit for 
it ; but to what jiraise am I entitled if my su- 
perior fortune is the result of exclusive privi- 
leges which I deny to ni}- unfortunate fellow- 
citizens? 

I wish it distinctly understood that in all I 
have said here I am no one-idea man. I never 



15 



had "negro on the brain." [Laughter.] I 
always fight with the people and for the people. 
I never belonged to the Wendell Phillips or 
Gerritt Smith party. I do not say this from want 
of respect for them, for they were noble pioneei's 
in the cause of human liberty ; but I am for the 
black man, not as a black man ; I am for the 
white man, not as a white man, but I am for man 
irresjiective of race or color; I am for God's 
humanity here, elsewhere, and everywhere. 

Sir, Mr. Lincoln never said so beautiful a 
thingin all hislife, according to my judgment, as 
when he said, "In giving freedom to the slave 
we assure freedom to the free." If we would 
preserveYreedom for ourselves and our poster- 
ity, let us see to it that all are free, that there 
are no warring, wrangling, discordant races or 
classes out of which is to grow a future conflict 
of races, future war, and final disunion. 

My distinguished friend on my left, [Mr. 
Davis,] the compeer of Mr. Clay and Mr. Crit- 
tenden, for whom I have such high respect, 
quoted from numerous authors to show that the 
freedmen belonged to an inferior race, to which 
I refer for this reason : if the Senator from Ken- 
tucky, the loyal and patriotic Senator from Ken- 
tucky, through the prejudices of education, can, 
with almost barbarous cruelty, parade, in long 
array, authorities from historians to show that 
the negro is an inferior race and not entitled to 
equal privileges with the white man, what may 
we not expect from the southern rebels whom 
negro valor has chastised, and whose secession 
principles negro votes shall yet vote down ? 

Mr. Lincoln made another beautiful remark 
in his letter to Governor Hahn. He said: 

"In some trying time the vote of the black man 
may serve to keep the jewel of ..liberty in the family 
offreedom." 

Sir, the time may arrive when the southern 
slaveholders and their northern sympathizers 
may come so near having the control of the 
Government, that the loyal black vote may be 
the balance of power and cast the scale in favor 
of Union and liberty. 

If universal suffrage is wrong, our Govern- 
ment is wrong. I am willing to conform to 
the principles of my Government wherever 
they may lead. If it turns out, as I fondly hope 
it may not, that our fathers were wrong, and 
that our people are incapable of self-govern- 
ment, and that a wealthy few, an intelligent 
few, or a single monarchought to govern them, 
I cannot help it, but that is not the principle 
for which I am fighting. I am fighting to carry 
out to its legitimate conclusion, to its logical 
sequence, what I believe to be the decree of 
Almighty God, that all men are created equal. 

Gentlemen ask me ' ' if I will go before the peo- 
ple of Illinois with such a proposition as this." 
Ay, indeed, and welcome it. I have no fear 
of the result. Through the clouds of the pres- 
ent I see the brightness of the future. There 
is, deep seated in the hearts of the American 
peoplp everywhere, the firm conviction that 
this negro question, however unpalatable its 
discussion may be, will never be settled until 



it is adjusted upon the principle of justice and 
equality. 

Sir, I can see now plainly the beginning of 
the end. I now seethe apotheosis of that living 
principle which fled the persecutions of the Old 
World ; which sought a home amidst the sterile 
rocks of New England ; which remonstrated 
against taxation without representation ; which 
exhibited its opposition to class legislation upon 
the bloody field of Bunker Hill, and which 
finally culminated in the greatest and most 
majestic and dominant idea of the world — the 
Declaration of American Independence. 

Sir, I am a man of the people ; twenty-five 
years of public service make me believe that I 
understand something of the temper and dispo- 
sition of the people ; and I am here to-day to 
say that it is my conscientious conviction that 
if every Senator on this floor and every Re|)re- 
sentative in the other House and the President 
of the United States should with united voices 
attempt to oppose this grand consummation of 
universal equality, they will fail. It is too late 
for that. You may go to the head waters of 
the Mississippi and turn off the little rivulets, 
but you cannot go to the mouth, after it has 
collected its waters from a thousand rivers and 
with accumulated volume is pouring its foam- 
ing waters into the Gulf, and say, "Thus far 
shalt thou go, and no further." 

Politicians may choose their course ; they 
may become frightened at the radical march of 
events ; they may throw pebbles into the mighty 
current of i^opular opinion. But the grand old 
river of progress, of liberty and humanity, and 
God's eternal justice, will roll on. Gentlemen 
may erect altars to conservatism ; but they will 
go 'down to that vortex into which so many 
compromisers, Union savers, and conser\-a- 
tives have already gone — " that bourne whence 
no political adventurer ever returns." Sir, I 
care not who the man may be, though he be a 
Senator upon the floor or the President of the 
United States, however high his title or proud 
his name, if he is false to human freedom "the 
places which know him now shall soon know 
him no more forever ! ' ' 

I remember well what the noble old Senator 
from Ohio [Mr. Wade] said in his speech ; 
how he was threatened with the anathemas of 
public vengeance when he was in a slim and 
hated minority; but, thank God, he still lives 
to look on the graves of his political opponents 
and revilers. Having fought the fight, having 
kept the faith, and come up through great trib- 
ulation, he is not here to surrender the citadel 
of liberty to a few guerrilla bands and the raw 
recruits who are wasting their ineffectual fires 
upon the fortifications which have withstood 
unshaken the roar and thunder of the whole 
pro-slavery army. I, sir, though a younger 
man, have a similar experience. I stood side 
by side with the noble Lincoln in every phase 
of these questions. I have fought the fight 
and lived to enjoy the delightful pleasure of 
telling the last Legislature of my State to sweep 
with a speedy, resistless hand the black laws 



16 



from our code. And they did it. They did 
not alter, modify, or amend them, but they 
eviscerated them, body and soul, from the 
statute-book, and scattered their black and 
blood-stained leaves upon the simoom of popu- 
lar indignation. 

Sir, what made Abraham Lincoln President 
of the United States? I know he was good, 
very good ; he was great, very great, in all those 
qualities which constitute the statesman ; but 
it was his persistent advocacy of the doctrines 
of the Declaration of American Independence, 
in his debates with Stephen A. Douglas, in his 
speeches at the Cooper Institute in New York, 
in Connecticut, and in Kansas ; it was his clear 
definition of the principles of human freedom; 
it was those God-inspired words — 

"This Union cannot permanently endure half slave 
and halt' free; the Union will not be dissolved, but 
the house will cease to be divided" — 

it was this which riveted the attention of the 
nation, and made him President of the United 
States. And why, sir? Because, despite the 
prejudices of education, which we all have, 
despite centuries of wrong and oppression, 
there is somewhere, away down in the depths 
of the human soul — and that soul is deeper than 
oceans ; it is like infinite space and has no 
boundaries — there is somewhere in the unfath- 
omable depths of the human soul the love of 
liberty and the hatred of oppression. That 
chord Lincoln struck, and thus made himself 
President and his name immortal. Why are 
you Senators here from every northern State? 
Is it because you are able men? But you are 
not the only able men in your States. There 
are men distinguished for great ability and illus- 
trious service in your States. You are here, 
because you have been true to truth, to justice, 
to liberty, and to equal laws. 

It is too late to change the tide of human 
progress. The enlightened convictions of the 
masses, wrought by the thorough discussions 
of thirty years, and consecrated by the baptism 



of precious blood, cannot now be changed. The 
hand of a higher power than man's is in this 
revolution, and it will not move backward. It 
is of no use to light against destiny. God, not 
man, created men equal. Deep laid in the solid 
foundations of God's eternal throne, the prin- 
ciple of equality is established, indestructible 
and immortal. 

My way to settle our national troubles is to 
punish some traitors, not for the sake of venge- 
ance, but for the sake of example. Thera 
ought to be some example made in order to 
inculcate the idea that treason is a crime in this 
country, and that it will be punished. I would 
then extend pardon to all the rebel masses ; I 
would withhold it from the leaders of the rebel- 
lion. I would confer upon the freedmen, made 
free by the Constitution and laws of the land, 
universal suffrage. 

Mr. President, as I said in a speech on the 4th 
day of July last — and I wish to repeat it here 
now, to show that these are no new-formed 
opinions — I say again : 

"This is the genius of our Government. I am will- 
ing to trust the people; and I believe that our Gov- 
ernment, founded upon the will of all, protected by 
the power of all, and maintaining the rights of all, 
will survive the storms of civil and external convul- 
sion, and growing in grandeur and power, will be- 
come one of the mightiest nations on the face of the 
earth. Therefore I am opposed to slavery and seces- 
sion, for an undivided Union, for universal freedom, 
and universal suffrage." 

Senators, sixty centuries of the past are look- 
ing down upon you. All the centuries of the 
future are calling upon you. Liberty, strug- 
gling amid the rise and wrecks of empires in 
the past, and yet to struggle for life in all the 
nations of the world, conjures you to seize this 
great opportunity which the providence of Al- 
mighty God has placed in your hands to bless 
the world and make your names immortal, to 
carry to a full and triumphant consummation the 
great work begun by your fathers, and thus lay 
permanently, solidly, and immovably the cap- 
stone upon the pyramid of human liberty. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



y 



r 



li 



